dan wrote:I am really astounded at this thread, no one wants to engage the arguments I present and instead resort to personal attacks and twist what I say to the point where I can't even recognise in anyway shape or form that it is my own thoughts and feelings.

If you think nobody wants to engage the "arguments" you made, I suggest you go back and reread the thread. Your "arguments" against the two cases mentioned, weren't based on facts. And everyone who has commented in the thread, has shown you that. Why is it that you are the only one who can't see that?

Yes, the only one! After Neo watched the video, he even realized what we all are saying!

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

If you're listening, I will no longer call you obtuse. Dan is the official G&S Obtuse King.

I am sorry but Dan didn't say Christians should be persecuted, he said people breaking the law should be punished. There is a difference! Unlike you, he is not advocating just for Christians but how the law should apply to everyone. Can you see that?

Neo,

I thought you watched some of the videos, and agreed that the bakers were being wrongfully persecuted?

Dan feels that they aren't being wrongfully persecuted. He said that they broke the law, and they should pay the price. And, because they refused to bake a cake with a message that they disagree with, that's the reason millions of people die.

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

It's okay to disagree. Infact it really is a staple of online forums, Christian or otherwise. Banter, a bit of too and fro. Some cheekiness and sarcasm here or there I think we all need to wear our big girl and boy pants but we are at times just going to disagree. Not through a fault of the other but because by the beauty of God, we see things in such different lights and therefore shades of an argument that are seen are dependent on the person.We need to stay respectful of that.

In this particular discussion as with most there are blurred lines.Should a cake maker have to make a cake with a message that is offensive?? With zero ability to decline then of course logically no. Would I make a cake for a bigoted group that wanted 'gays are creeps' piped on a cake then no. I would decline. I would find it morally unacceptable to do so.This argument could and has been flipped. What does a Christian do when they are asked to pipe 'gay pride' onto a cake when they find it morally unacceptable to do so? Possibly declineHere is where it gets very ambiguous.When it's not about the message per say being offensive but about an ideal or people, or agenda that becomes the issue. What I mean by that is everyone has the personal right to conviction based on religion or otherwise. It's not illegal to be a twat. To be racist, to be religious an environmentalist or to have very strong personal beliefs about whatever.We take our beliefs into every aspect of our lives, rightly or wrongly.I have have read fairly widely into the Christian discrimination argument of 'cake makers' and despite the couple headliner 'grabbers' the general consensus is they don't want to make cakes for homosexual weddings. As it goes against their religious beliefs. The argument that being homosexual has nothing to do with it, and if a gay person walks into a bakery and asks for a hummingbird cake then they aren't discriminated against ergo it's the message not the person is a fallacy. Because unless they have 'gay' tattooed on their forehead then sexual orientation is unknown. Or at best may be questioned but who could deny a guy who's a little camp wanting a donut. My point is what if I belong to a religious group that doesn't believe in racial marriage but I'm asked to make a cake that wants a reflection of the bride and groom ontop of the cake, nothing offensive but a white little groom sitting untop with a beautiful dark skinned bride alongside. I could argue black and blue I would never not serve a beautiful dark skinned woman in my store but it's the union I'm against. As by my religion. It's not the message on the cake, it's discrimination.

What if a Muslim couple walked in and wanted a wedding cake with the words 'Allah bless us'? The message is not offensive. Its discrimination to deny a wedding cake in this example. If the message was 'death to infidels' that would be entirely different regardless of whether it was for a wedding. We have as media does, perversed the issue for sensationalism. Although big headlines get us talking and make the news, 99.9999 of gay couples are not trying to make some radical stand on their wedding cakes or on their wedding day. They don't want a double phallus or twin vulvas with 'gay, gay, did you get that gay!! A simple message of Larry and Garry tastefully written ontop of a cake, has nothing to do with some outrage of the message but discrimination of the couple.

Is homosexual sex wrong, is it a sin? If you answer yes, do you think that a Christian, or anyone else, should be forced, by law, to go along with legitimizing sexual sin, even though their conscience is telling them that it's wrong?

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

RickI'm actually really pleased you asked that. Because you are getting to the issue. There has been side stepping and semantics that have plagued this thread, like its not about being gay but about the message... And so forth and so on. I felt this was a deflection of the bigger issue.The not-so-elephant in the room. Homosexuality is a sin.

Before I touch on that, Any message portrayed on a cake is secondary and not the issue!!I don't want to seem pedantic but I think in light of this thread it's necessary to paint it boldly. It's the lifestyle, it's the people involved, it's the questionable SIN that's the issue, not some icing on a cake!

It's NOT the message but the perceived wrong doing. The distinction is important.

So getting to your question is being homosexual wrong?I don't know.I honestly do not know. I have my background telling me yes. And I have my life experience telling me otherwise. In my walk, I have had the unique and beautiful experience of having such an eclectic bunch of gorgeous people cross my path, in contrast to a very grounded, religious experience. It's confounding and conflicting. Do I know for certain, no. Have I thought I've known. Yes. Will that change? Possibly.So I've shifted my focus off if it's a sin. To a bunch of us, stumbling through life.What I know is we all sin. To that the eye rolls start like 'cop out' and scale of sin.Jesus didn't start our countdown of the biggest sin, we did. We all fail. In my stubbornness, vanity, arrogance, sarcasm, gluttony, loudness and so many but clearly I'm focusing on my own.Truly if I was a lesbian that would be the least of my faults lol

Do you mind answering the question I asked? You rephrased it, and asked a different question. I asked a specific question, because there is an important distinction that is being missed.

Please go back and address my question. I'm not talking about being homosexual. I'm talking about homosexual sex. I'm asking you if that's wrong.

Here's what I asked again:

Is homosexual sex wrong, is it a sin? If you answer yes, do you think that a Christian, or anyone else, should be forced, by law, to go along with legitimizing sexual sin, even though their conscience is telling them that it's wrong?

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

The issue with the conflict of homosexuality is that we all ( almost all) know gay people that are great and loving and caring and that are so happy when they are with another gay person.Love is love, right?If God is a God of Love, if He IS love then ANY love is ok right?

Well, NO.

We all know that some types of love and sexual expression is NOT healthy, it is not healthy physically and not healthy mentally and emotionally even IF it may SEEM so in the short term.

Homosexuality is like that.We tend to think that, when between two ( or more) consenting adults, what's the problem?

Well, the problem is right and wrong is NOT based SOLELY on consent and we all know that.A person may consent to have their body tortured because they like it but we know that is not good ( nor good physically and not good mentally).People take drugs and smoke because it makes them feel good, but it isn't.As long as no one is getting hurt is another excuse BUT we also know that hurt comes in many forms and studies have shown the issue that homosexual people tend to suffer more from depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders.

Look, we all want people to find love and be loved and we love seeing our homosexual friends happy and we believe that as long as people are happy and love each other that it doesn't matter if they are gay.Well, the harsh reality is that is not the case.

For those who still don't see that it's about the message, and what the message represents, and not about discrimination against someone because they're gay, maybe this example will help you understand.

In the Irish case that this thread's original post is about, a baker in Ireland refused to bake a cake, with the message, "Support Gay Marriage".

What if a baker refused to bake a cake with the message, "Support heterosexual sex outside of marriage", and he refused to bake it?

According to some people's logic here, he should be arrested for discriminating against someone because they're heterosexual.

In the first, the message represents something against the baker's conscience. Gay marriage represents a perversion of what God instituted, as the way two people are to be united. One man, one woman, committed under God, in a monogamous union.

In the second, the message represents something against the (hypothetical) baker's conscience. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage, is a perversion of what God originally instituted...

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

Semantics again, with no clear definition. Irish, English, Welsh, Finnish what have you.The message is of no value. But rather is it a perversion.I DONT KNOWIs the way we conduct ourselves everyday a perversion? Obese nations with heart disease eating our way into disease as we watch perversion of the heterosexual variety till our hearts content. Pornography and of the legal variety as half naked women flaunt themselves all over media and we accept it and invite into our culture.But a couple of loving guys is perverse while perversity reaks itself all over 'normallaity'. The depravity sexually that eats it's way through society is by and far of the heterosexual variety .

melanie wrote:Semantics again, with no clear definition. Irish, English, Welsh, Finnish what have you.The message is of no value. But rather is it a perversion.I DONT KNOWIs the way we conduct ourselves everyday a perversion? Obese nations with heart disease eating our way into disease as we watch perversion of the heterosexual variety till our hearts content. Pornography and of the legal variety as half naked women flaunt themselves all over media and we accept it and invite into our culture.But a couple of loving guys is perverse while perversity reaks itself all over 'normallaity'. The depravity sexually that eats it's way through society is by and far of the heterosexual variety .

Is it really that difficult for you and Daniel to deal with the facts, and the topic at hand?

When someone says they think abortion in Australia is a problem, do you say, "Well, I don't know about that. Children are starving in Africa"?

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

Do you mind answering the question I asked? You rephrased it, and asked a different question. I asked a specific question, because there is an important distinction that is being missed.

Please go back and address my question. I'm not talking about being homosexual. I'm talking about homosexual sex. I'm asking you if that's wrong.

Here's what I asked again:

Is homosexual sex wrong, is it a sin? If you answer yes, do you think that a Christian, or anyone else, should be forced, by law, to go along with legitimizing sexual sin, even though their conscience is telling them that it's wrong?

I did answer your question RickThe whole notion that it's okay to be gay but not have gay sex is just as realistic as being heterosexual but never having actual sexWhat a crock of unrealistic bullcrapI've actually heard that before.This idealistic notion that homosexual behaviour is of itself isn't bad but never act on it. Do you remember being 16?Full of sexual desire?And to then be told no matter what don't act on it because otherwise you're going to hell. It's okay to have feelings. Being who you are isn't bad but don't act on it. This shite notion that homosexuality isn't bad just the act, what a crap hand.To the 18 yr old just trying to be okay. Not a homosexual or heterosexual but just acceptable in who they are.

melanie wrote:Semantics again, with no clear definition. Irish, English, Welsh, Finnish what have you.The message is of no value. But rather is it a perversion.I DONT KNOWIs the way we conduct ourselves everyday a perversion? Obese nations with heart disease eating our way into disease as we watch perversion of the heterosexual variety till our hearts content. Pornography and of the legal variety as half naked women flaunt themselves all over media and we accept it and invite into our culture.But a couple of loving guys is perverse while perversity reaks itself all over 'normallaity'. The depravity sexually that eats it's way through society is by and far of the heterosexual variety .

Is it really that difficult for you and Daniel to deal with the facts, and the topic at hand?

When someone says they think abortion in Australia is a problem, do you say, "Well, I don't know about that. Children are starving in Africa"?

IS HOMOSEXUALITY A SINAnymore than stupidity?? Or sexual addiction, or gluttony, or pride or arrogance, or greed, or vanity, or selfishness, or an inability to recognise the down fall of others whilst forgetting our own. The log in the eye thing.

Last edited by melanie on Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.